I've been on this website for 13 years and made thousands of edits over those years, and yes, I have had lots of warnings, and I have tightened up my editing- but a permanent block (let's face it, that's what this is) in this instance is way too harsh and I don't feel this is right. I feel like I got a life sentence with no parole for punching someone in the face, so to speak.

I provided sources on Ward Weaver III. According to this admin (and he's right), there was one mistake in that detailed edit that he pointed out that I had made in not providing a correct source for Wesley Rotteger (whom he referred to as "Rutger", and hence the mismatch), so this admin decided to go from 1 to 1000, delete my edit and then permanently block me from this website. Another example- the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and O'Hare International Airport changes: I simply changed the number of total gates because based on the cited number of gates, you add them up, and you get a number. Atlanta, for example. I changed it from 195 to 196 because 21+29+32+34+40+28+12=196, not 195.

I understand the block and I understand why I got blocked, and what I'm asking for is a non-permanent block. The last time I got blocked was for a week, and I feel 2 weeks to a month would be more appropriate. A permanent block is just way too harsh, and for someone who has contributed largely positively to this website over these years, I don't feel I have done enough at this stage over the years to warrant such a punishment, and I don't appreciate being told that I am "extremely incompetent" and that "I am not welcome here." I have contributed enough to make a positive difference on many pages on this website, and am always willing to improve my editing skills to this site's standards so that further blocks will be averted. --Hmdwgf (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting an end date on the block doesn't do anything to resolve the issues that led to the block. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. The block can be removed when you can sufficiently assure us that the problematic behavior will not repeat. This request doesn't do that. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I looked through the sources again, and a lot of them did not cover Ward Weaver III's family on his father's side. I willingly and carelessly did not provide enough or any reliable sources to my edits. That was a mistake- one I've made way too many times, and one I will never make again- if you have trouble believing me, all I have is my word. I consistently violated WP:Verifiability; I never took that seriously enough, and I will take it seriously next time- if there is a next time for me. This admin was justified in blocking me, he clearly felt like he was doing the right thing. But there are some things that admin got wrong with reverting my edits, and why I do not entirely deserve this block. Example 1: Again, I simply changed the number of total gates because based on the cited number of gates, you add them up, and you get a number. I changed the total number of gates on that article [195 to 196] because 21 + 29 + 32 + 34 + 40 + 28 + 12 =196, not 195. Same thing on the O'Hare International Airport article. I changed it [191 to 208] total gates, which was still wrong, as 50 + 41 + 79 + 40 = 210, not 208 or 191 as it is currently listed. Little things like basic math do count for something. I did forget to include sources for the bits about O'Hare and Atlanta airports being the busiest and second busiest respectively, which again, I will not do in the future. As hard as this may be to believe for some people, I am willing to learn from my mistakes, site my sources with cited, reliable information, not be a disruptive editor and prove that I am competent. Please message me back if there's anything you'd like me to do or if there is anything that needs to be done. Thank you.--Hmdwgf (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

I accept your sincerity, but ... as you note, you've been editing for 13 years (albeit infrequently and intermittently). So it is somewhat troubling (as you seem to understand) that in the last six months, you got blocked three times for the same thing. It is much more likely in that situation, when the user is a registered account, that the next block be indefinite. A newer registered account might not even have been allowed to get that far. In sum, you got more than the usual chances, and still blew them.

"Indefinite" and "permanent" are not necessarily the same thing, no matter how much the Internet tries to make them be. The former means that there is a chance you can be unblocked. Permanence is more often the consequence of a formal ban by either ArbCom or the community, especially in the latter case. But even those bans have sometimes been lifted.

I think your case would be better served by leaving well enough alone for a while (like, not trying so hard to explain yourself in your unblock request ... your explanation about the gate arithmetic really isn't as relevant to your block as the fact that you went back to it like a moth to the flame. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am appealing my block. I willingly and carelessly did not provide enough or any reliable sources to my edits. I did that because I thought I could get away with it and that I would never face any real repercussions. That was a mistake- one I've made a lot too often, and it was wrong and not conducive to Wikipedia's growth and credibility as a worldwide source. It is a mistake that I will never make again. WP:Verifiability; I never took that seriously enough, and I will take it seriously next time- if there is a next time for me. This admin was justified in blocking me, he clearly felt like he was doing the right thing. Is there anything I can do to contribute to Wikipedia:Task Center that needs done? --Hmdwgf (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you now know and are certainly expected to know after nearly 14 years and 9,000 edits here, all information in Wikipedia is expected to be cited to a reliable source. Information on living persons is required to be cited inline, as misleading or incorrect information published here can have serious and severe real-world consequences for the persons affected. I am going to unblock you, however based on your recent editing history prior to your block, I believe it is prudent that as a condition of unblocking, you are topic banned from biographies of living persons. I will describe this further below. As always, repeating the behaviour which led to the block is likely to result in more serious sanctions, up to and including being banned from Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I willingly and carelessly violated my initial ban on living people. I did that because I thought I could get away with it and that I would never face any real repercussions, like I did before when I would post edits without any sources. That was a mistake- one I've made too often, and it was wrong and not conducive to Wikipedia's growth and credibility as a worldwide source. It is a mistake that I will never make again. I never took WP:Verifiability seriously enough, and I will take it seriously this time- if there is a "this time" for me. It has also been 8 months since I was banned. Is there anything I can do to contribute to Wikipedia:Task Center that needs done?

 Confirmed WP:LOUTSOCK. I will strengthen your block to reflect this. This puts you one further instance of block evasion away from an indefinite WP:CBAN, as per WP:3X. Yamla (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this time, I made edits while logged off to get around my ban. I did that because not knowing much about how IPs work, I thought I could get away with it and that I would never face any real repercussions, like I did before when I would post edits without any sources. That was a mistake- one I've made too often, and it was wrong and not conducive to Wikipedia's growth and credibility as a worldwide source. It is a mistake that I really will never make again. I never took WP:Verifiability or WP:LOUTSOCK seriously enough, and I will take it seriously this time- if there is a "this time" for me. I never attempted to mislead on those edits I made- I really, really do have the website's best intentions at heart. It has also been nearly a year since I was first banned. My time on Wikipedia will be extremely limited- I will only be contributing seriously to 1 article (it's locked to non-users) and I will make minor corrections to others other than of course, ones about living people, if I am allowed to edit again. Thank you.

Considering you were already unblocked following an indefinite block, and your recent history of block evasion, I cannot unblock you at this time. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]